Overwatch Game Informer Review – An Epic Evolution

Overwatch is an amazing experience. It’s fresh and consistently fun, with matches that are great in random groups, but astonishingly good when played with friends.

[hulk_bash1987]

Super fun multiplayer game, a solid 9/10 for me.

[opinionated]

No wonder people consider 7.5 a bad score... 10s are handed out like food stamps in a trailer park.

[gangsta_red]

I know right? Would scores of 10/10 be considered clickbait? I mean no game can be perfect and without some criticism right?

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

No game can be perfect, but they can still earn a 10. 10/10 means it's a must own.

Why would a game getting a 10 annoy anyone? Don't we want games to succeed?

[opinionated]

The scores are such bullshit now. It's all clickbait, they are a business first. It just defeats its own purpose in the metacritic reference records of achievement.

Why even have a score? I bet you those reviews here with no scores in the headline don't get half as many clicks. Nobody cares. The highest peak and the lowest valley are the only thing people care about. That metamindset. Praise one and trash the other. The truth is usually in the middle somewhere 99% of the time. In the metacritic realm, anything below 85 is trash to gamers and publishers alike. That's such a phony corporate way to look at games.

I encourage everyone to wait 4-5 months before buying the game you want. 25% off easily. Make your own review when nobody gives a shit in 2 weeks. Or support the dev and buy it at launch. That's all the publishers care about (most anyway).

It's annoying because it's all of them lol. Uncharted, doom, Overwatch, (I'm calling blood and wine expansion). 10s down the front page, boom boom boom. Like god damn, is this the greatest month in gaming history? I wouldn't call any of these games 10s personally.

[Vegamyster]

@XiKurapikaKurta

Dying Light sold over 5 million with a 74 on metacritic and most people seemed to enjoy it, scores don't determine success.

[Christopher]

Especially for yet another Blizzard generic game that essentially just takes what has been done by many others in the past and applies some polish to it (at least they kept true to the historical Day 1 Blizzard policy of connection issues). Too much hype for Blizzard games in general, same with some other big titles like R* and ND. Would be neat to have a system in place where you couldn't reveal who worked on what until it was already reviewed and released.

I don't mind 7.5 scores. They don't bother me. But, the 10/10 throw about all the time... that bothers me way more. I have one game I'd rate 10/10 and that's Planescape: Torment. One game. The rest are 9/10 or lower, though there are a lot of 9/10 games. Just... I'm not going to throw the perfect score at everything because so many games today have issues in one way or another.

[USMC_POLICE]

How am I the only one that thinks for $60 this is light on content, siege and battlefront both had more to offer but were ripped apart for not enough content. I guess because it's blizzard it's ok?

[Aloy-Boyfriend]

Because it is not lacking anything? That's not how I feel. Maybe a couple more modes, but as it stands it's fine.

[NegativeCreepWA]

It's really a $40 game

[Pandamobile]

I paid $40 flat for it on Battle.net.

[0ROSOY]

Pay to win 10/10

[SUCKxITxEZ]

Umm...... Wut?

[hulk_bash1987]

Pay to win? What game are you playing?

[MRMagoo123]

you aren't the only one. I think this game will end up like the division

[Ravenor]

Two different games, but hey I like to cry over stuff I don't like too!

[WeAreLegion]

He said it would end up "like the division". He didn't compare them as games. Only how they would fare in the market.

[Ravenor]

Siege I'll give you had some variance between operators, but Overwatch is about 1000% better than Battlefront. Characters, weapons, maps are all well crafted and won't require a 69.99 CAD Season Pass. Battlefront is just about the most god awful boring game, everything shoots the same, everyone looks the same. It's boring. Also way to gloss over why people were upset with Battlefront. People wanted the glorified bot matches from Battlefront 1-2, that's why Battlefront was getting ripped apart.

If you don't want to buy it, no one has a gun to your head.

[jb227]

That's the issue here with these kinds of games isn't it? Reviewers get these copies & all of the extra paid content handed to them free of charge, typically wrapped up in some pretty press kit packaging. It's a lot easier to hand a game with thin content a perfect score when you aren't actually paying for it. I mean it's a true human phenomenon. A game like AC IV is great & I loved it, but I grabbed it for $10 on a sale...had I paid full price I'd have been much more critical of the subpar story, annoying stealth missions & frustrating platforming mechanics...because I got the game for so cheap, I was able to focus on all of the things the game did right vs. Feeling that tinge of regret upon completion that you get when you finish a game that you paid full retail for but had some issues with.

I haven't played Overwatch & TBH I don't really intend to as mp is not my bag, but from what I understand this is a game that launched for $20 cheaper on PC & featured all or most of the console content with even better performance. I just don't see how a company can have such a lack of parity between two versions of essentially the same product. If people dig it for what's available & feel they got their money's worth then more power to them, but I still feel like when cost is a factor, criticism seems to become significantly harsher for games like these. Look at the more recent ones like Titanfall, Battlefront & Evolve, all 3 created controversy & a disparity between the general gaming public's perception of their quality vs. the critics' perception.

[Ravenor]

The 39.99 version doesn't have any of the skins or content for other blizzard titles but is essentially the exact same as the Origins edition. Your performance comment is irrelevant, my PC is more powerful than my XB1 or PS4 that's just the way it is. Battlefront reviewed poorly, Evolve was a game that like Left 4 Dead was entirely dependent on who you got to play with (On that front I wasn't surprised it reviewed well), and Titanfall was one of the first games this generation to really nail the wall running, double jumping gameplay that has become so in vogue. You say controversy, I just hear whining and hand wringing. Evolve may be the odd man out but, you can still find a Battlefront or Titanfall game easily. Reviews aren't skewed by the "publics" perception, it's how the reviewer feels.

Listen man, you said it yourself. You don't even plan on playing the game, it doesn't interest you and MP in general isn't your thing. That's fine, Warhammer:Total War just came out, UC4 just came out, No Mans Sky is coming. Just move on instead of just needlessly bagging on shit unnecessarily.

[WellyUK]

because it's not lacking in depth. Which is what every good/long lasting MP game has to have and Overwatch has heaps of it.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

No way in hell.

[wakeNbake]

Its definitely fun, the question is how good will the post launch support be?

[NegativeCreepWA]

Considering its blizzard, it'll have great support. And free from what they've said.

[MRMagoo123]

going by blizzard it will be crap support like world of warcraft has been for years .

Diablo 3 hasn't had phenomenal support ??? are you playing the same 3 versions of Diablo 3 I am ? pc ps3 and ps4 haven't done much since the last expansion besides pc may have gotten some new seasons but they aren't new content they just add some gear and ppl play the same old story again to unlock it.

[Ravenor]

Ignoring Hearthstone, Starcraft 2, Heroes of the storm and D3? All have had phenomenal support, what crawled into your panties today?

[Notellin]

If Diablo 3 is anything to go on Blizzard's track record supports the idea that post launch should be stellar.

[overrated44]

Well, it's Blizzard. Diablo 2 is still updated occasionally and recently they updated Warcraft 3, both of those franchises are over a decade old. Assuming Blizzard is going to have lackluster post launch support is silly.

[Keyblade]

uh I love this game but even I wouldn't give it a 10. needs campaign and more maps

[SUCKxITxEZ]

Ya just like pulp fiction needed more cgi and 3D. And how does battlefront have more content? You play as either a rebel or a stormtrooper and you shoot dudes with lasers. In overwatch you have over 20 characters that each play completely different, from an 8 foot tall dude with a hammer to a 90 pound girl that can manipulate time.

[Notellin]

The idea of content only consists of map count to these young bucks nowadays.

[SUCKxITxEZ]

@Notellin- the difference in likes and dislikes on our comments is confusing and disturbing.

[WellyUK]

doesn't need a campaign.

[Keyblade]

You're right, it doesn't. But for a game to be a 10/10 I would expect at least a short campaign.

[holdmyown83]

Definitely not a 10. No way in hell this game is better then destiny.

[wakeNbake]

It is. Alot better.

[T-Dawg6]

it's so much better than Destiny

[Ravenor]

TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF GAMES. Holy flipping hell, they're both first person shooters but Destiny is a LOOT game and Overwatch is an Arena based team shooter. God this community is dumb as rocks.

[holdmyown83]

WTF does it matter? Nobody said they were anything alike. It was only stated because Destiny I know wasn't a 10 and it had way more content than overwatch so no way in hell it deserves a 10.

[SUCKxITxEZ]

I like how people think of RNG as content. If you like seeing randomised numbers go to a casino and pump 120$ into a slot machine. Destiny had like 6 maps for the first 6 months and 2 modes.

[Ravenor]

Content alone isn't an indicator of quality, I'm sorry you're to new to this to understand. Destiny's launch content and format was an abomination and so far from what was advertised and shown off it would make your head spin. You ever wonder why the procedural levels in a Diablo is so important? No? I'm not surprised. It's all well and good you don't think it deserves this score another individual has given it, everyone is free to disagree. But an apples to oranges comparison does not fly, and Destiny 1.0 sucked like a dumpster fire.

[hulk_bash1987]

You talk like all that other Destiny content was free. The problem with vanilla Destiny for alot of people was it was barebones. It got alot better with each expansion but you had to pay an additional $80 to get the full experience.

[Ricegum]

Destiny is such a chore to play, I can't believe you're even comparing the two.

But at least they have something in common I guess, they both lack story.

[irishyort]

has any of the reviews addressed the 6 minute (feels that long) run back into battle after dying or have they changed this upon release??

[Ravenor]

A lot of characters have mobility abilities, the larger characters (With considerably more health) are balanced that way specifically. You're being punished for dying, it wouldn't work if Bastion or Roadhog could sprint back to the line.

[irishyort]

Fair point, but it does make the game feel very disjointed that it takes so long to get back into the fray on some maps in my BETA play through.

It's not a dealbreaker but I noticed it and have heard it mentioned a few times by gaming review sites while playing the BETA also, but seems to be missing information in this batch of final reviews.

[WellyUK]

stop dying then.

[SUCKxITxEZ]

Considering you only get 40 seconds to set up defense, which is easily enough time to travel to the opposite end of the map, I'd say that's an exaggeration. Not really an issue, nor is it something that could change without even worse consequences, like spawning in the middle of a fight and getting spawn killed ala battlefield.

[kindkinesis]

Games should not be scored higher if like playing with friends makes it a better experience, imo. but i am sure this is a great game despite whatever qualms i have with it.

[Ravenor]

It's alright to admit no one wants to play games with you.

[Roastbeast420]

Fun, quality mp game... But it is a bit light on content. This title has a huge marketing budget, which explains the 9s and 10s.

[afg4everpsn]

i think that the scores for this game are given out in comparison to other online games (or online component of games)... and for what it is, this is the first online game that I have truly felt a connection with (for its varied characters, interesting maps, nice color palette); and for the record, I have never been a fan of online games, played BO3s', BF4s' and many others games' online components for about 5 to 6 hours each, and passed on to other things. why? because they felt overly competitive: scoreboards everywhere, too many statistics, etc. This game is way better than any other online offering today; the last multiplayer game i enjoyed this much was Warhawk, way back when

[Tankbusta40]

In about two weeks time people's initial opinions of the game will change. Initially it's awesome but the more time you put in the more you realize how little content is in this game. No idea why a publication like game informer would throw a ten at an online only game with only 3 modes.

[WellyUK]

Content isn't an issue. Why? because it has depth, look at every other long lasting / popular online game, they all have depth which is where all the other MP only games fail. A great variety in characters, great map design and counter picks to all those characters + it's competitive which gives overwatch the depth to be successful and get high review scores. Then you add in Blizzard and the support the game will get will be very good.

The problem with N4G is everyone is obsessed with 10 hour single player games and cant get it into their thick skull that there are also MP games that cater to a MP audience that are great for that audience. That is what Overwatch is, big MP gamers will love overwatch and if not then there is always something else to play.